2010 (1) TMI 117 - SC - Income Tax

Applicability of Section 40(2) appropriation of profit payment to cane growers - Whether the above-mentioned differential payment made by the assessee(s) to the cane growers after the close of the financial year or after the balance-sheet date would constitute an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961; and whether such differential payment would applying the real income theory constitute an expenditure or distribution of profits? held that matter remanded on the issue of determination of the question whether the obligation is attached to income or to its source AO directed to determine whether the said differential payment constitutes an expense or distribution of profits

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Section 40A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the differential payment made to cane growers constitutes an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court considered the applicability of Section 40A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in cases where the State Advised Price (S.A.P.) is determined based on recommendations by the assessee(s). The Department argued that the differential amount between S.A.P. and S.M.P. constitutes appropriation of profits, while the assessee(s) contended that the payment to cane growers is a statutory obligation not linked to profits until determined after deducting all business expenses. The Court highlighted the need to examine how S.A.P. and S.M.P. are determined, the timing differences in accounting years, and whether provisions in accounts are from profits or gross receipts.

2. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to consider whether the differential payment to cane growers should be treated as an expenditure under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Factors such as the source of funds for provisions in accounts, the nature of differential payments in relation to sugarcane costs or profit distribution, and the theory of over-riding title in income accrual were highlighted as crucial for assessment. The Court emphasized that these questions were not adequately addressed by lower authorities and needed examination to determine if the payments constituted expenses or profit distributions.

3. Despite the cases being for Assessment Year 1992-1993, the Court remitted the matters to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the recurring nature of the issue. Both parties were allowed to amend their pleadings, ensuring a fair hearing without influence from previous judgments. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits and disposed of the civil appeals filed by the Department without costs, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of whether the differential payments should be treated as expenses or profit distributions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.